scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Pemegang Saham Minoritas Perseroan Terbatas Tertutup dan Keadilan Berdasar Pancasila

SASI ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Mustaqim Mustaqim ◽  
Agus Satory
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Full Control

Legal protection for the majority shareholders is sufficiently guaranteed, especially through the mechanism of the RUPS, but this is not the case for minority shareholders, thus creating an injustice problem for minority shareholders. The purpose of this study is to uncover and find out legal protection for minority shareholders in a limited liability company based on Pancasila justice. This research is normative juridical so it uses secondary data with the law approach and qualitative data analysis. The results showed that the General Meeting of Shareholders did not reflect legal protection for minority shareholders, because in every decision making through the General Meeting of Shareholders and various other decisions based on the attendance quorum about the majority of votes present at the General Meeting of Shareholders. Such matter is detrimental to the interests of minority shareholders because without the presence of minority shareholders, a General Meeting of Shareholders can be held, while minority shareholders also have the same rights and obligations and responsibilities. The majority of shareholders hold a large and full control over the company, resulting in minority shareholders, there is no guarantee to get justice based on Pancasila justice. Therefore, the General Meeting of Shareholders must be held if attended by all shareholders with voting rights present or represented. If this is not the case, the results of the General Meeting of Shareholders may be canceled.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS YANG TIDAK DILIBATKAN DALAM PROSES AKUISISI

Yuridika ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Maya Sari Tan ◽  
Abdul Rahcmad Budiono ◽  
Hanif Nur Widhiyanti
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Financial Difficulties ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Majority Shareholder

Acquisition as a form of corporate restructuring that is carry out to overcome the situation of financial difficulties or improve the performance of the company as a whole or part of the business unit. In Article 126 paragraph 1 of Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company stated that the acquisition process should consider the interests of minority shareholders. However, sometimes acquisition decisions have already been decided in advance by the majority shareholder without involving minority shareholders. Based on this, this paper intends to analyze the form of legal protection for minority shareholders who are not involved in the acquisition process. Through the approach of legislation and case approach, it is found that Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company has not provided enough legal protection to minority shareholders. The decision-making process of acquisition in the General Meeting of Shareholders should be procedurally and substantively in accordance with Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. It is intended that minority shareholders have the opportunity to exercise their voting rights even though they do not have to be the party controlling the company.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PEMEGANG SAHAM MINORITAS DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN NOTARIS DALAM RUPS PT TERTUTUP [LEGAL PROTECTION FOR MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTARY RESPONSIBILITY IN A GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANiES]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Susi Susantijo ◽  
Shinta Pangesti ◽  
Robbyson Halim
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>In practice, there often occurrs defective procedure when holding a Private Limited Company’s (PLC’s) General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), which later stated in Deed of the Meeting Resolutions by a Notary. Regarding the defective procedure in GMS, shareholders will surely suffer losses because their rights are violated, especially minority shareholders. Two problems that arise and examined in this study are: How is the legal protection for minority shareholders in a PLC’s GMS? and How is the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in a PLC? This research is normative legal research. Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded that legal protection for minority shareholders in PLC’s GMS, has been quite well regulated in Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. On the other hand, the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in an LLC is a liability limited to formal truth or formal requirements. Regarding the material truth, it is not the responsibility of the notary but is the responsibility of the legal subject who performed the legal action. Notary in carrying out his position also requires having thoroughness and carefulness in doing any legal action, including making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions.</em><strong><em></em></strong><p><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT: </strong>Dalam praktek, sering sekali terjadi penyelenggaraan RUPS PT Tertutup yang mengandung cacat prosedur, yang kemudian dituangkan dalam Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat oleh Notaris. Terhadap adanya penyelenggaraan RUPS yang mengandung cacat prosedur, para pemegang saham pasti akan mengalami kerugian karena hak-hak mereka dilanggar, khususnya para pemegang saham minoritas. Dua rumusan masalah yang timbul dan diteliti dalam penelitian ini adalah: Bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas dalam RUPS PT Tertutup? serta Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup? Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas sehubungan dengan penyelenggaraan RUPS dalam PT Tertutup sudah cukup baik diatur dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT). Di samping itu, pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup merupakan pertanggungjawaban sebatas pada syarat formal atau kelengkapan formal. Kebenaran materiil bukan tanggung jawab notaris, melainkan masing-masing subjek hukum yang melakukan. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya juga dituntut memiliki ketelitian dan kehati-hatian dalam melakukan setiap perbuatan hukum, termasuk pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat.</p>

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pemegang Saham Minoritas Pada Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Merger

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
I Kadek Sridana ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Putu Gede Seputra
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

Abstract-Mergers can be said as a strategy or one way to increase a company, therefore there is a need for legal protection for minority shareholders if they do not agree with the merger but the merger is still implemented, and the shareholders are forced to accept the merger. The formulation of the problem in this case is (1) what is the position of the minority shareholders for the limited liability company that merges? (2) What is the legal protection of minority shareholders in a limited liability company that merges? This research method uses a normative research method by approaching the problem in the form of a draft law that relates to the problem under study. The sources of legal material to be used are sourced from research, the literature in the form of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The result of this study are the legal position of the minority shareholders of the company (PT) that carried out the merger has been regulated in Law number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and in Government Regulation Number 27 of 1998 concerning merger, consolidation and takeover of the interests of minority shareholders. In general, the law of limited liability companies is a guideline in the framework of protecting minority shareholders. Protection of minority shares is one of the important things, especially when the company conducts legal actions such as mergers, both preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. Keywords: Legal protection, shareholders, mergers Abstrak- Merger dapat dikatakan sebagai strategi atau salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan suatu perusahaan oleh karena itu perlu adanya perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas apabila mereka tidak setuju dengan merger namun merger tetap dilaksanakan, dan pemegang saham tersebut dipaksakan untuk menerima merger tersebut. Adapun rumusan masalah dalam hal ini (1) Bagaimanakah kedudukan pemegang saham minoritas bagi perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? (2) Bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pemegang saham minoritas pada perseroan terbatas yang melakukan merger? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif dengan melakukan pendekatan masalah berupa pedekatan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan masalah yang dikaji. Adapun sumber bahan hukum yang akan digunakan yakni bersumber dari penelitian, kepustakaan berupa bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder. Adapun hasil dari penelitian ini adalah kedudukan hukum pemegang saham minoritas terhadap perusahaan (PT) yang melakukan merger, sudah diatur dalam Undang-undang nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan terbatas serta dalam Peraturan pemerintah Nomor 27 Tahun 1998 tentang penggabungan, peleburan, dan pengambilalihan tentang kepentingan pemegang saham minoritas. Secara umum hukum perseroan terbatas menjadi pedoman dalam rangka perlindungan pemegang saham minoritas. Perlindungan terhadap saham minoritas merupakan salah satu hal yang penting terutama saat persroan melakukan perbuatan hukum seperti merger baik perlindungan hukum secara preventif maupun perlindungan hukum secara represif. Kata kunci: Perlindungan hukum, Pemegang saham, Merger

scholarly journals Minority Shareholders’ Legal Protection in a Limited Liability Company System

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1606-1612
Author(s):  
I Gde Sukarmo ◽  
◽  
Hayyanul Haq ◽  
Zainal Asikin ◽  
Salim HS
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Shareholder Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The purpose of this study is to determine the legal protection model for the majority and minority shareholders in public limited companies. This research method is normative research. To investigate the ineffectiveness of laws and regulations, in particular, Law No. 40 of 2007 on limited liability companies in providing shareholder protection, researchers have studied the laws and regulations and considered the views of experts on legal concepts related to legal protection for shareholders, particularly, minority shareholders. The results showed that the law did not provide maximum legal protection for minority shareholders, creating an imbalance between the rights of the minority and majority shareholders. For this reason, 1) reform or progressive changes in laws and regulations are needed, for instance, in PT Law No. 40 of 2007. These changes should be fundamental to philosophical aspects (values and perspectives) in providing shareholder protection; 2) the review of shareholders’ protection methods should be based on the aspects of fairness

scholarly journals The Role of Video Conference During Pandemic Times: A Case of General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) to Reduce the Spread of the Covid-19 Virus

Webology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (Special Issue 04) ◽  
pp. 963-979
Author(s):  
Ikhyari Fatuti Nurudin ◽  
Agus Nurudin ◽  
Fifiana Wisnaeni
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Video Conference ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Life Activity ◽  
Virtual Communication ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Positive Law

Pandemic times are difficult and full of adjustments, where every sector of daily life activity changes. Changes that seem so significant can be seen from the limitation of social activities in the community, conventional activities with face-to-face and virtual face-to-face. Virtual communication is also implemented in holding the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) via video conference in order to reduce the spread of the Covid-19 virus. This article uses a normative juridical research method, namely research on the principles of positive law written in legislation by collecting data from secondary data. The results of this research from this article include: First, the holding of the GMS during this pandemic was carried out using video conferencing in two ways, namely through the Depository and Settlement Institution with an Open Company which has a private system in accordance with the latest Regulation issued by OJK No. 16/POJK.04/2020. Second, the legal certainty of this GMS has been tested, the output of the GMS is in the form of an electronic document or written in an Authentic Deed and can be used as a means of proof in court, so that the Limited Liability Company can choose one of them.

Corporate Contract and an Agreement on the Implementation of the Rights of Members of Society: Some Problems of Correlation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Владимир Камышанский ◽  
Vladimir Kamyshanskiy
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Corporate Rights ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
Natural Way

The article provides a critical analysis of legislative regulation of the corporate agreement and an agreement on the implementation of the rights of members of a limited liability company. It is alleged that the corporate contract has undoubted relevance and usefulness to the participants of companies, as it allows to regulate relations in the implementation of corporate rights is not a natural way, and on a contractual basis, recognized by the parties and provide legal protection for the parties to the contract. It stands out as a number of circumstances that require legislative authorization and refinement in the process of enforcement of a limited liability company. Among the outstanding legislator before the end of the problems include: the problem of correlation of the content of the agreement on the implementation of the rights of the parties and the agreement on the establishment of the company; the problem of correlation of the contract on the implementation of the rights of the participants and the Company Charter, decisions of the general meeting; the problem of succession of the contract on the implementation of the rights of participants; the problem of awareness of other members of the Company and third parties about the agreement on the implementation of the rights and conditions.

scholarly journals PENGATURAN REKAPITALISASI PERSEROAN TERBATAS

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 219
Author(s):  
Gde Andika Sumadi
Keyword(s):  
National Development ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
Voting System ◽  
Majority Shareholder ◽  
The Ideal

In the case of shortage of capital, limited liabililty company allowed to conduct recapitalization, an activity to increase capital. Recapitalization provisions set out in article 41 up to article 43 of Law No. 40 of 2007 does not comply with the basic considerations point c of the limited liability company law. The provisions essentially determines the recapitalization can be carried out with the approval of the general meeting of shareholders that is based on the principle of one share one vote, while the considerations stated that the limited liability company is one pilar to accelerate national development that composed based on the principle of togetherness. The legal problems addressed in this study are first: how the recapitalization arrangements in the Law No. 40 of 2007?; second: how the ideal mechanism of recapitalization in realizing the the principle of togetherness within the limited liability company? This study is a normative legal research on arrangement of a limited liability company’s recapitalization. The legal problem solving uses the statute approach and historical approach. The result of this study showed that the first, arrangements of recapitalization of the limited liability company law is inadequate because it creates a disadvantage for minority shareholders and not in accordance with the principle of togetherness which is exist on the considerations part of the limited liability company law. Second, the ideal mechanism of recapitalization is to use deliberation to reach an agreement and general meeting of shareholders not use the voting system which is more favorable to the majority shareholder. Shareholders of both majority and minority can make a contract that the recapitalization can be done without harming minority shareholders, for example by bonus shares. Dalam menjalankan usahanya ada kalanya Perseroan Terbatas (PT) dihadapkan pada suatu situasi dimana PT mengalami kekurangan modal. Pada situasi seperti ini perseroan diberikan jalan untuk melakukan Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal yang diatur dalam Pasal 41-43 Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UUPT). Dalam ketentuan mengenai Rekapitalisasi ini terjadi konflik norma antara ketentuan yang mewajibkan rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal dalam Perseroan dilaksanakan melalui persetujuan RUPS dengan bagian menimbang huruf c UUPT yang di dalamnya disebutkan bahwa PT merupakan usaha bersama berdasarkan asas kekeluargaan. Permasalahan yang dikemukakan dalam penelitian ini adalah, pertama: Bagaimana pengaturan Rekapitalisasi di Dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas? Kedua: Bagaimanakah mekanisme Rekapitalisasi yang ideal dalam mewujudkan asas kekeluargaan dalam Perseroan Terbatas?. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis penelitian hukum normatif yang mengkaji pengaturan mengenai Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal dan bagian menimbang huruf c UUPT. Pendekatan yang digunakan untuk memecahkan permasalahan ini adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan (the statute approach) dan pendekatan historis (historical approach). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, pertama: pengaturan Rekapitalisasi atau penambahan modal ke dalam Perseroan di dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas kurang memadai karena pengaturannya masih memungkinkan akan menimbulkan kerugian bagi pemegang saham minoritas dan tentu saja hal ini bertentangan dengan asas kekeluargaan yang terdapat pada bagian menimbang huruf c Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Kedua: rekapitalisasi harus dilakukan berdasarkan asas kekeluargaan yaitu melalui jalan musyawarah untuk mufakat, dan tidak menggunakan sistem voting yang lebih menguntungkan pemegang saham mayoritas. Selain hal itu, pemegang saham mayoritas dengan pemegang saham minoritas dapat membuat suatu kontrak yang menyepakati bahwa rekapitalisasi yang akan dilakukan perseroan tidak akan merugikan pemegang saham minoritas, misalnya melalui pemberian saham bonus.

scholarly journals ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANGGOTA DIREKSI DENGAN TANPA DIDAHULUI ADANYA PEMBELAAN DIRI DALAM RUPS [JURIDIC ANALYSIS REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITHOUT SELF DEFENSE IN THE GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Felicia Darlene
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Company Law ◽  
District Court ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>One of the sectors being developed by the Indonesian government is economic growth, which impact on increasing Limited Liability Companies. Provisions that contain procedures for managing a Limited Liability Company are regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UU PT), one of which is the procedure for dismissing members of the Board of Directors. Article 105 of the Company Law stipulates that the dismissal of a member of the Board of Directors is taken after the person concerned is given the opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, regarding legal protection for the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors who violate the provisions of the Company Law. The Law on Judicial Power regulates the absolute competence of each judiciary. With absolute competence, each judicial body has different jurisdiction to judge. The method used in this study is normative juridical. The results and conclusions of this study are that the dismissal of members of the Board of Directors without any prior self-defense in the GMS is invalid if the members of the Board of Directors object to his dismissal. Legal protection for members of the Board of Directors who are dismissed not in accordance with the provisions of the Company Law is to file a lawsuit to the District Court.<br /><br /></em><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT:</strong><p>Salah satu sektor yang sedang dikembangkan oleh pemerintah Indonesia adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, yang berdampak pada meningkatnya Perseroan Terbatas. Ketentuan yang memuat tata cara pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT), salah satunya adalah tata cara pemberhentian anggota Direksi. Dalam Pasal 105 UU PT diatur bahwa keputusan pemberhentian anggota Direksi diambil setelah yang bersangkutan diberi kesempatan untuk membela diri. Selanjutnya mengenai perlindungan hukum atas pemberhentian anggota Direksi yang melanggar ketentuan UU PT. Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman mengatur mengenai kompetensi absolut setiap peradilan. Dengan adanya kompetensi absolut, maka setiap badan peradilan mempunyai yurisdiksi mengadili yang berbeda-beda. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil dan kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah pemberhentian anggota Direksi dengan tanpa didahului adanya pembelaan diri dalam RUPS adalah tidak sah jika anggota Direksi keberatan atas pemberhentian dirinya. Perlindungan hukum bagi anggota Direksi yang diberhentikan tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan UUPT adalah mengajukan gugatan ke Pengadilan Negeri.</p>

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PARA PIHAK DALAM PEMBUATAN AKTA RUPS YANG DILAKSANAKAN MELALUI MEDIA TELEKONFERENSI

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Ni Made Dyah Nanda Widyaswari
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
The Future ◽  
Civil Suit ◽  
Notary Public

<p>Cyber Notary is a concept by using the development of existing technological sophistication, by using the power of notary technology can carry out its duties and authority. With a teleconference if violations occur at the General Meeting of<br />Shareholders (GMS), such as violations, legalization of electronic deeds, digitizing documents, and other similar matters. That way the existence of Cyber Notary requires that notaries not only be clever in the field of notary but also can master the technology in the application of Cyber Notary. Facilitating the occurrence of long distance transactions between the parties is the concept of Cyber Notary was born. Thus, the background as above is discussed regarding, Using Teleconference for General Meeting of Shareholders. What legal protection measures will be used for the parties who are holding a general meeting of shareholders with the teleconference media.</p><p>This study uses normative law and several approaches, namely the legislative approach and the case approach. This study uses the analysis of legal materials using the techniques of description, evaluation and argumentation. This study found results, namely: 1. The implementation of the General Meeting of Shareholders with Cyber Notary in Law No. 40 of 2007 which describes the Limited Liability Company in carrying out a GMS by teleconfession.</p><p><br />In the implementation of the GMS conducted by Cyber Notary in Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies does not explicitly explain the substance of the GMS that can be carried out by teleconference. The making of a<br />GMS deed carried out by teleconference by a Notary Public is valid as long as it meets the requirements of the GMS implementation. 2. The GMS consists of various parties including the Company Organs and Notaries. Legal protection for notaries is regulated in the provisions of article 66 of Law No. 2 of 2014 concerning the position of notary public (UUJN). Meanwhile, legal protection for the company's organs in connection with the making of the GMS Deed carried out by teleconference if a dispute arises in the future includes two matters, namely through a civil suit and Reporting or giving a complaint to the notary area supervisory assembly.</p>

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP DIREKSI YANG DIBERHENTIKAN TANPA MELALUI RAPAT UMUM PEMEGANG SAHAM (Studi Pada PT. Sumber Andalan Mandiri (SAM))

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Lubis ◽  
Neneng Oktarina
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Problem Formulations

One of the most incorporated legal entities as a business entity by business people today is a Limited Liability Company. In practice the mechanism for the appointment, replacement, and dismissal of the Board of Directors is not always adhered to properly by the Company's organs. In the case of PT. SAM with Phiedi as Director of PT. SAM has permanently and permanently dismissed one member of the Board of Directors from his position as a director without going through the GMS. Legal facts, the existence of e-mail dated April 22 and 24 2014 which essentially contained the dismissal of the Directors of PT. SAM is permanent or permanent. This paper discusses several problem formulations, namely: 1) What is the legal protection of directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders according to the positive legal framework in Indonesia? 2) What is the legal effort made by the directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders? This research is a descriptive research. The approach used in this study is a normative juridical approach supported by an empirical juridical approach. The data used in this study are secondary data and primary data. Against all data and materials obtained from the results of the study will be compiled and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study explain that legal protection against directors who are replaced by directors who are dismissed without going through the GMS then: 1) Each member of the board of directors is personally responsible for the loss of the company; 2) Personal responsibility is attached to the member of the board of commissioners if he is guilty or negligent in carrying out the duties of supervision or giving advice; 3) Although the loss arises from the management of the board of directors, the members of the board of commissioners remain personally responsible if in the supervision of the implementation of the management of the board of directors there is an element of error or negligence of the board of commissioners; and 4) The extent of personal responsibility of the members of the board of commissioners, limited to their mistakes or negligence, and fifth, if the members of the board of commissioners consist of 2 (two) or more, personal responsibility, is jointly responsible for each member of the board of commissioners. Legal efforts made by directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders, then upon dismissal of the Board of Directors without the GMS, the Commissioner must immediately convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders to follow up on the temporary dismissal of the Board of Directors by the Board of Commissioners, then as soon as possible the Board of Commissioners calls the shareholders in the framework of the Extraordinary GMS to strengthen its decision. Considering that the Director is a majority shareholder, of course the ordinary GMS will not succeed because there is a quorum rule and the validation of the vote

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document